Bug#548640: lintian check for dpatch describtion could honnor DEP3 style description

> The operation that I'd want to be sure to test is modifying the patch > and regenerating it and being sure that dpatch retained the comments > rather than rewriting the header and losing them. Just did that and no problem. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#548640: lintian check for dpatch describtion could honnor DEP3 style description

> I assume from that that dpatch supports DEP-3 and doesn't get confused by > comments not using that prefix? The patches apply cleanly. So I assume, yes. Header is maintained by dpatch-edit-patch when the @DPATCH@ tag is found (according to it's own comments). Paul signature.asc Description:

Bug#548640: lintian check for dpatch describtion could honnor DEP3 style description

Paul Gevers writes: > In my packages I put the description of patches according to DEP-3 [1]. > It would be nice if lintian would not complain about > dpatch-missing-description when the fields described by DEP-3 are > available instead of the "## DP:" lines. > Paul > [1] http://dep.debian.net/

Bug#548640: lintian check for dpatch describtion could honnor DEP3 style description

Package: lintian Version: 2.2.17 Severity: wishlist In my packages I put the description of patches according to DEP-3 [1]. It would be nice if lintian would not complain about dpatch-missing-description when the fields described by DEP-3 are available instead of the "## DP:" lines. Paul [1] htt